Linux-Advocacy Digest #479, Volume #29 Fri, 6 Oct 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 2.4! ("Todd")
Re: 2.4! ("Todd")
Re: 2.4! (David M. Cook)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: 2.4! (pp@p)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (David M. Cook)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:28:19 +0800
"Roberto Selbach Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "Ian" == Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ian> With a beta driver (opposed to the non-beta windows
> Ian> driver). How come that fact keeps passing you by?
>
> IMNSHO, this whole argument is useless... yes, Linux driver is beta
> and thus it is not supposed to be perfect. But that does not change
> the fact that, as things are right now, GL is faster in Windows. Ok.
>
> Now I ask: so what? Do we *really* want to fight windows in GL? Yes,
> we want. But it is not nearly as important as all the other categories
> where Linux simply blows Windows.
I keep hearing that 'Linux simply blows away Windows' when in fact, every
benchmark shows the opposite.
The OpenGL benchmark is just another one. Mindcraft was yet another.
tpc.org is another.
> So, keeping this thread alive is simply stupid.
How many more benchmarks do you need?
>
> Just my opinion for you kids out there.
>
> regards,
> --
> Roberto Teixeira.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:40:08 +0800
"Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > "Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Well, I just moved to 2.4 test 9... I must say, I'm impressed! All my
> > > USB devices working... great... great... great *jaw lying on the
ground
> > > after compilation* ... WOW! I love it!
> >
> > yawn... Windows 2000 has had USB support since its inception. Also,
Windows
> > 2000 has *drivers* for the USB devices so that you can actually *use*
them.
> >
> > What good is USB support with the drivers for the devices?
>
> Hmm.. my mouse, my keyboard, my camera, my printer and my speakers
> work... what's the matter?
sure they do... sure they do. :)
> > > Hmm.. with this kernel, and some more work by the GNOME foundation and
> > > Helixcode Linux can finally kick some real butt on the Desktop
(together
> > > with NVidia hardware, we just need a damn open-source GL driver *g*).
> >
> > Linux is going to need a hell of a lot more work before it is suited for
the
> > desktop. But then again, don't take it from me, just look at the market
> > today.
>
> Exactly, 5% growth per month. That's a lot! 2004 and Windows and Linux
> will be equal at share.
You don't *really* believe that, do you?
> (at the current rate, which at my opinion will
> decrease a little because dumbasses like you don't know how to deal with
> Linux)
Huh? I've got RedHat 6.2, (soon to upgrade to 7)... I already know how to
*deal* with Linux, it's just that dumbasses like you actually think that a
hacker OS is better than Windows 2000.
> > > I'm so proud.
> >
> > Only a Linux user would be proud of a hacked OS that just got a feature
that
> > has been around on other OSes for quite some time.
>
> Hmm.. MacOS is the only platform that has really decent support for USB,
> in Windows it's still kind of flaky...
Really? Windows has better USB support for peripherals than Mac.
Just how is Windows USB support flaky? I think this is just a silly attempt
by you to shift focus away from Linux' poor support of USB.
> > BTW, according to recent tests on www.tomshardware.com, NVidia hardware
runs
> > OpenGL faster on Windows 2000 than under Linux.
>
> Those were made with 0.92, if you take a look at the current benches
> (0.95) with kernel 2.4 you will see a slight increase that brings Linux
> to a slowdown of as low as 3%.
Yah, sure it does. When I see a 3rd party *benchmark*, I'll believe it.
Even if you were right, 2000 is *still* faster.
> > Why even use Linux??
>
> Because it's great,
how so?
>stable,
ok, I'll give you that one. However, it isn't stable when running Netscape.
Windows 2000 is stable also, btw.
>fast,
but slower than 2000,
>and free.
Only if you don't have to actually use it in a commercial environment where
the TCO makes it more expensive than 2000.
-Todd
> Best regards,
> Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: 6 Oct 2000 03:45:20 GMT
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:46:23 GMT, Raul Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dislike a lot GNOME and hope it not to become neither the dominant nor
>the only desktop around, in fact, I do not need a desktop at all.
I don't use GNOME on my desktop either (rxvt seems to be my file manager of
choice), but I do like programming with pygnome.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 23:51:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donal K. Fellows in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Fanatics don't have consistent belief systems.
>
>No, fanatics *are not required* to have consistent belief systems.
Fanatics don't have consistent belief systems.
>And the belief system could be consistent, but have no grounding in
>the observable universe (a common occurrence!)
Aside from the fact that it is not consistency with anything else but
the belief system itself which I was addressing, they aren't consistent
that way, either.
>> It is not possible to have a 'consistent belief system' unless your
>> belief system is entirely and only the laws of physics.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: pp@p
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: 5 Oct 2000 19:55:26 -0700
In article <8rj71c$mvq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve says...
>
>Never would you see a good UNIX programmer using something like
>DWORD in his code.
use Java, and you never have to worry about any of this.
for example, in Java, an int is the same size everywhere.
java solves many portability problems.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 03:52:17 GMT
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:58:08 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>At my current employer I hear the phrase, "The mail server is down again,
>it should be back up after a reboot". The mail server, of course, being
>a Linux mail server. I imagine there will be only a few more of these before
>our management complains that they are missing emails.
And my response to this is the same response any MS advocate would have to
anecdotes about NT instability: poor administration. I would certainly
question the competence of any unix admin who rebooted a box as a "fix".
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:14:49 -0000
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
>The fact is there isn't a right, there is an technical capability, and
>you have no constitutional right to deny anonymous participation in
>public forums, THAT'S the point.
You have the right to deny access to anyone for any reason in a public
forum. Show me a law stating I have no right to administer a public forum
that I have created any way I see fit. These laws you make up get more
outlandish every day.
>>Furthermore, when you point out that much of said participation was
>>libellous in nature, they simply repeat their claims about the "right to
>>anonymity".
>
>You were supposed to read what we wrote: there weren't any claims about
>the right anonymity. We never used the term, but I'd say we were
>arguing a 'right to freedom from harassment', which you generally
>wouldn't abide by. That is understandable, but you're on shakey ethical
>ground when you insist that you have the right to determine who can post
>what statements anonymously.
If you have editing access to news files and run the group you can delete
any post for any reason. Even if you don't have personal access to the files
you can request that they are censored and there isn't a damn thing anyone
can do about it. Editing someones post could be considered copywrite
infringment, but deleting the post for any reason on earth is perfectly
legal.
Given the fact, as I've described, that
>the source of the statements being anonymous is enough to make them so
>questionable that in a heated exchange
Define anonymous. You yourself are posting anonymously so what are you
talking about. A post with a real "sounding" name is still anonymous.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:28:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >It is perfectly measurable. That humans tend to consistently fuck up the
>> >measurements is a purely HUMAN problem, completely outside the philosophy
>> >of science.
>>
>> Well, it seems that you aren't very rational about the one thing you act
>> as if you know something about. What exactly is 'philosophy of science'
>> supposed to be?
>
>Take a few philosophy courses and you'll find out.
No, I meant "to you". I know what the philosophy of science is supposed
to mean, but you seem entirely ignorant of it.
>> >Einstein didn't give a damn. He was never on the empirical side of things
>> >and he said as much. He was also an atheist.
>>
>> Which would explain why he described his reservations about the reality
>> of quantum mechanics with the phrase "God does not play dice with the
>> universe", I guess. It seems he probably expressed something of an
>> agnostic view.
>
>Einstein was an atheist and he clearly stated as much; I can find the
>exact reference if you wish.
Yes, I wish.
>It is very common among physicists (especially cosmologists) to refer to
>the laws of physics or the universe with the word "God". It doesn't mean
>anything.
Quite true, but I happen to know this isn't a simple debate. This was
not alone is pointing out that Einstein was not even really concerned
with theistic theory, only theoretical physics. He wasn't so much an
atheist as a 'poster child' for atheists, especially ones who are very
proud of themselves, like you.
>> >> If the light had not curved, what would have happened to relativity?
>> >
>> >It would still be a beautiful theory.
>>
>> A scientific theory which has been proven false is "incorrect", and I
>
>If the light hadn't been seen to bend in that *horribly inaccurate*
>experiment, then nothing would have changed. Certainly, GR would not
>have been "disproved" on that basis. People who know little of physics
>like the naive Empiricist view (used as propaganda chiefly because it
>is so naive) but that's just bullshit.
Well, that's a good catch. One would have to assume that its beauty
would have been marred. And if we presume that the light didn't bend,
then alternative theories which explained all previous findings and this
anomaly would have superseded general relativity. So in the end, you're
simply wrong. The fact that failure of a single experiment does not
prove a theory wrong does not make empiricism a naive view, but a
superior one. The power of empiricism is, after all, falsifiability.
It seems strange that you say you are familiar with the philosophy of
science, but seem entirely ignorant of Karl Popper. To call science
'propaganda' is simply the height of post-modernist bullshit, and the
characteristic naivete of the well educated but simple-minded angry
young man.
>> Perhaps what we have here, Roberto, is a very well educated person who,
>> despite his over-abundance of thinking, isn't capable of grasping
>> abstractions. This might explain why, while supposedly possessing a
>> huge amount of knowledge on 'the philosophy of science' and related
>> matters, his arguments quickly degenerate to calling people 'morons' and
>> 'cretins'.
>
>This is laughable. You're going to lecture ME on the proper use of
>abstraction? You can't even make the difference between conceptual
>and physical reality!
I'm not sure why you think that. Yes, I would lecture YOU on valid use
of abstraction. You over-estimate your intellect, I can assure you.
>> Let me ask you something, Richard. When you are talking about
>> definitions, are they exclusive, or inclusive definitions? An exclusive
>> definition is defining a word by excluding every meaning except the
>> correct one, while inclusive is expanding the definition to include all
>> uses of the word. Which is the more 'rigorous'?
>
>Neither. Being rigorous has nothing to do with being exclusive or
>inclusive. That only has to do with being /correct/ and definitions
>can be rigorous without being correct.
Well, for some abstract idea of 'rigorous' maybe, but only if you ignore
the concept of 'definition' to begin with. Accuracy seems to have
something to do with it, not to mention consistency and practicality.
We aren't defining languages for computers, you see, but for human
beings, in this instance. I suppose next you'll tell me that there
isn't any difference between the two.
>> >I don't do metaphor. I do abstractions. Don't assume that everyone is
>> >as limited as you are.
>>
>> Interesting. How can you 'do abstractions' without being capable of
>> using a metaphor? And why would your inability to use metaphor well be
>> a limitation on Roberto's part?
>
>Metaphors are /crude/ abstractions.
Metaphors are *literary* abstractions. Just like interfaces are
technical abstractions. Some are crude, some are not.
>> >"not holding it against them" is the same thing as actively and deliberately
>> >avoiding passing a negative judgement.
>>
>> No, it is passively and judiciously not allowing one's negative
>> judgement to influence ones actions.
>
>Ahhh, then "not holding it against them" is to be a conscious and
>deliberate sell-out?
No, its to be a non-extremist-anarcho-pseudo-intellectual. A
pragmatist, one might say. Others would refer to it as 'sane'.
>> >Irrelevant since whether or not they're subjective, at least I *can* make
>> >value judgements; you can't!
>>
>> And obviously you value ad hominem attacks quite highly, as you seem to
>> employ them often.
>
>Posting to USENET is not a game of logic and reason.
LOL. What particularly might you think it is, then, to you? A chance
to prove that you are an incompetent buffoon? I must say you've almost
perfected the art.
[...]
>You are SO wrong. DNA isn't passive, it's *active*. DNA isn't tape, it's
>*machinery*. DNA has state and it is capable of learning in every sense
>of the word.
I think you confuse DNA and RNA. <giggle>
>Just why the hell do you think it took them so long to figure out how to
>clone mammals?? You think that it was that hard to injuct a strand of DNA
>from here to there? Nonsense!
>
>But then, you probably have a very 1970s view of DNA.
GUFFAW.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:31:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >I am NOT getting into metaphysics and epistemology with you.
>>
>> You're not getting into it with anybody else, either. I think the
>> reason your posts are so annoying, Richard, is that you want to continue
>> to act as if you have a huge wealth of knowledge and information which
>> others are not privy to, and rather than use any of it to make sense or
>> support your points, you just insult anyone who disagrees with anything
>> you say, and then use this pretend expertise to avoid explaining your
>> arrogant bullshit.
>>
>> It might be worthwhile if you were to occasionally get into *something*
>> besides calling everyone else a cretin and making asinine comments.
>
>It's too bad that a single article can't be a follow-up to two articles
>because that's exactly what this is.
>
>In another article on this subthread (three above and then two down from
>where this/my article is)
Gee, did you ever consider a message-ID reference, brain-boy?
>you "explain" what immortal cell lines are to me,
>and then you "explain" what happens to elementary particles, all as if I
>didn't know this (and infinitely more) already.
It seemed apparent from your statements, which were incorrect on these
topics. Possibly not your concepts, but certainly your explanation, and
use in example, was deeply flawed.
>The reason I don't "use any of [my knowledge] to make sense or support
>[my] points" is precisely because I'm not an arrogant asshole willing
>to lecture others uninvited at the drop of a hat.
Well, that makes you an ignorant twit, in my book.
>If someone wants me to explain something then I expect him to ASK me
>explicitly. If he doesn't and he continues to disagree out of ignorance,
>then he /is/ a cretin as far as I'm concerned.
You're a fucking ignorant shit-brain, Richard. Admit it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:38:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Why the fuck should I, cretin? Haven't you ever been around political
>> >activists long enough to know they *do* call corporations immortal as
>> >a matter of course?
>>
>> Richard, you are just hopelessly *bad* at making your point. Might I
>> suggest this re-write, as a courtesy:
>>
>> "Yes, 'ageless' is quite close the concept I'm referring to. I have
>> been around many political activists who use the term 'immortal' to
>> describe the agelessness of corporations."
>
>Mmm ... Naaaa. Frankly, I don't see the point. This entire thread has
>little or no worthwhile reasoning and is just intellectual masturbation.
So you're crying "Uncle", is that it?
>Why anyone would want to read this thread is a mystery to me but they
>can't be expecting solid reasoning if they've followed this far. Why
>dash their expectations?
So why do you go on? You're the only one lacking solid reasoning here.
>> >Animation is not the same thing as beinghood.
>>
>> "Beinghood" isn't any *thing* until you give us some more accurate,
>> consistent, or practical concepts on which to base our understanding of
>> what on christ's green earth you mean by "beinghood".
>
>Much earlier, I defined 'being' as 'an entity with will'. "beinghood"
>is "the property of being a being" ....
Yea, fine. How about you just use the term 'consciousness', like every
other normal person.
>> >Unless of course, you have
>> >a broad definition of will.
>>
>> Roberto already said three posts back that your definition of will
>> sucks, and I agree with him, and you said 'too fucking bad'. So I don't
>> think it a broad definition of will, but a valid one, which might be at
>> issue. However, I don't believe that 'animate' has anything to do with
>> either beinghood or will.
>
>He didn't give any objection to my definition of will beyond an irreducible
>difference of opinion.
He said it sucked, and you revised it, and he said it sucked in a
revised way, if I'm not mistaken.
>See, unlike Roberto (who has never bothered to think rigorously or define
>the concepts he uses) I *have* tried to come up with a definition of 'will'.
Yes, but your definition sucks. If you want to denigrate his because he
got it out of a dictionary, you're going to have to provide more than
your asinine arrogance to justify the expansion.
>I probably started out with a conception of will similar to Roberto's, but
>at some point when I tried to define this concept in a non-arbitrary manner,
>I decided that there *wasn't* a non-arbitrary way to define will so as to
>exclude self-replicating machines from possessing it. So rather than trying
>to justify an exclusion that can't be justified, I made my conception of
>will more inclusive. Roberto has simply never bothered to justify his
>thoughts before and he doesn't give a damn that they're unjustifiable.
Yet he was holding his own against your post-modern bullshit until I
couldn't resist distracting you, it appeared.
>This is just prejudice with a pretense of rational thought by appealing
>to the All-Holy Webster's dictionary of Common Usage.
Which goes back to my question, which you never answered: are words
defined exclusively, or inclusively?
>> >So in *my* case, animation might be the same
>> >as possession of will.
>>
>> So, YOU are saying that you have a broad definition of will, to the
>> point where anything that is animate has will. Since that definition is
>> inaccurate, inconsistent, and impractical, I'd say it doesn't work in
>> *my* case, so too bad.
>
>Fine. Produce a rigorous definition of will that excludes simple
>animate objects like self-replicating molecules of RNA.
You're asking the wrong guy. I don't think sentience requires 'will'.
>> >In your case, since you "won't even guess" about
>> >what you're thinking ....
>>
>> I don't know what tripe you're referring to, but you really have to stop
>> being an asshole Richard. I'm enjoying watching Roberto tie you in
>> knots far too much; its a guilty pleasure, because I don't think people
>> should act like you and Roberto do on Usenet. Its embarrassing.
>
>There are plenty of newsgroups for friendly, supportive or meaningless
>chatter. COLA isn't one of them (except maybe 'meaningless'). COLA is
>about being vicious and being an asshole. Well, I'm doing that even if
>it's "off-topic" or I'm "on the wrong side" (ie, against Unix). Hey, if
>people wanted to be educated then they would ask and they don't.
Fuck you. I have engaged in enough discussions which describe the
distinction between being wrong and trolling to say that you are full of
shit. COLA is about advocating Linux, and engaging in general
discussion as per the rest of Usenet. I don't have anything against off
topic, but that doesn't stop you from being an egocentric moron.
>Btw, I'm referring to the fact that Roberto consistently refuses to
>justify, or even define!, his terms.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:40:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Anyone who wants to will be able to use it. So far, that means me.
>> >Like I've said before, if I get a thousand installations in 2010
>> >then I will be content.
>>
>> Sounds wonderful. Good luck. Are you going to write all the apps, too?
>> Or is this going to be one of those 'doesn't have apps' kind of things?
>
>I'll write the apps I need and others can do the same. That means I'll
>have to write ... a text editor? Yes! Ummm, what else ... ? Windowing?
>That's not an app, that's part of the system ...
Which means someone has to write it, right? Are you *sure* you're going
to have a worthwhile system in five or ten years? That seems pretty
tight, considering how you're the only one currently working on it and
you seem kind of stupid.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
